1939 National Register??

[ScouseBoy]

If my dad was deemed to have enlisted in RASC on 3rd September 1939,  were May he be listed on the register, do you know?

[Mean_genie]

Anyone who was already in military service would not be included, unless they were home on leave on Registration Night.

[Beeonthebay]

There is less information in the 1939 Register than in the 1911 census; no birthplaces, or relationships within a household, naturalisation or nationality status, or fertility. Only name, date of birth, marital status and occupation were recorded, at the address where each person was on 29 September 1939.

Records are not opened or retained according to a single set of rules, and there are plenty of inconsistencies and anomalies. Legally, any census from 1921 onwards is covered by the 1920 Census Act. Prior to that, each census had its own Act, as did the 1939 Register. The 1841 and 1851 censuses were released in the 1920s, the 1891 census for Scotland was released some years before the 1891 census for England and Wales, and for a few years you could see the 1911 census for Northern Ireland in Dublin, but not in Belfast. The 1911 census for England and Wales was released early, with restrictions, as the 1939 Register for England and Wales will be, following successful challenges under FoI but the 1911 census for Scotland remained closed for the full 100 years, although it was actually opened exactly 100 years after it was taken, in April, and not in January of the following year, as is customary. The 1939 Registers for Scotland and Northern Ireland remain closed, but FoI requests can be submitted for individual records. Personal records of people who served in the armed forces after about 1923 are still held by the Ministry of Defence, but Merchant Navy records (where they survive) are open. That is what I can remember without looking anything up - goodness knows what else I'd find if I really looked hard! And I haven't even mentioned BMD records...

What restrictions are there on the 1911 census as per your above post?

[Mean_genie]

There are no restrictions now, but when it was released early the column recording disabilities was blanked out, this was considered to be sensitive information. Details of children born in prison was also supposed to be redacted for the same reason, but as far as I know there weren't any. If you see a copy of a household schedule from 1911 that was downloaded before January 2012 it will have a white strip down the right-hand side.

In the 1939 Register, any entry that is redacted will be covered up in a similar way, but the cover can be 'peeled back' when the 100 years has passed, or when proof of death has been verified. Clever stuff.

[Guy Etchells]

There are no restrictions now, but when it was released early the column recording disabilities was blanked out, this was considered to be sensitive information. Details of children born in prison was also supposed to be redacted for the same reason, but as far as I know there weren't any. If you see a copy of a household schedule from 1911 that was downloaded before January 2012 it will have a white strip down the right-hand side.

In the 1939 Register, any entry that is redacted will be covered up in a similar way, but the cover can be 'peeled back' when the 100 years has passed, or when proof of death has been verified. Clever stuff.

The column was voluntary blanked out, it was not required to be redacted under law.
The data commissioners ruling was that the sensitive information should be looked at on a case by case basis and a desicion made whether it was information that required redacting or not.
It was easier to redact the entire column and as nobody questioned it or complained they got away with it.

Cheers
Guy

[Blue70]

I have a lot of those redacted 1911 print outs on my files. I've left them as they are it would be a pain to do them again with the last column shown. I've collected the complete JPEGs though so I have both versions to view on PC.


Blue 

[Mean_genie]

It wasn't only easier to blank out all of the disability columns, it made practical sense too. If the only bits that were blanked were the ones where a disability was recorded, that would indicate that a person had a disability, which could be a potentially sensitive piece of information in itself. It was just a bit of a nuisance when other information had strayed over into that column so we couldn't read it until 2012.

[Beeonthebay]

Thank you I didn't know that as I was off the Family history wagon at that point.

[Guy Etchells]

It wasn't only easier to blank out all of the disability columns, it made practical sense too. If the only bits that were blanked were the ones where a disability was recorded, that would indicate that a person had a disability, which could be a potentially sensitive piece of information in itself. It was just a bit of a nuisance when other information had strayed over into that column so we couldn't read it until 2012.

No that was the claim made by the National Archives but the Information Commission agreed with me that was not accurate and could not be upheld in law.
He ruled in paragraph 53
"The Commissioner concludes by emphasising that each request for 1911 census
information must be treated separately on its merits. The National Archives will
need to consider the substance of the information which has been requested in
each case, will need to review what is stated on the face of the relevant census
schedule and may need to make further enquires."

What you are confusing and the National Archives was also confusing is the difference between personal information and private information and which will be confidential in nature.
Paragraph 37

“As indicated above, the Commissioner accepts that there may be categories of
information recorded on the face of the 1911 census schedules which have the
quality of confidence because they are likely to give rise to an expectation of
privacy. This is the kind of information which will meet the Campbell criteria of
‘private’ information and which will be ‘confidential’ in nature. In such cases -
taking into account that expectations can change from one generation to another
- the individuals concerned would have had a reasonable expectation of privacy
at the time of completion of the census schedules.”

An example of this would be a disability such as being blind; such information is personal information but has no confidential implications, everyone would know he/she was blind.
That would be different from someone described as lunatic, imbecile or idiot, it would also be different from revealing that a person was an inmate in an asylum all of which would require redacting.

Cheers
Guy